Hi All!
I just wrapped up my very first attempt to use the Danish Gambit. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a way to make the Gambit work to my advantage. In fact, LastPawnStanding fought me tooth-and-nail right down to the bitter end.
So, would anyone be willing to take a shot at picking apart my strategy to point out where I might've done better at using my developmental advantage? Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks to LPS for agreeing to let me post this:
Game 683125
hmm... I don't know the Danish gambit at all, but on first sight, 6. Nc3 seems to be bad... that bishop is happily menacing along that diagonal, why block it?
14. Nh4 Qd7 15. e6 would seem to just KILL black. :-) I mean, really, what's the defense? I suppose one answer might be 14. ... Qh5, but then 15. exd6+ Be6? 16. Rxe6+ fxe6 17. d7+ and if 17. ... Kd8, Qxb7 and I think it's only a matter of time. Similar in other lines I think... not sure. Black has reason to be scared, that's for sure.
But a nice game anyway!
Originally posted by paultopiaI agree.
hmm... I don't know the Danish gambit at all, but on first sight, 6. Nc3 seems to be bad... that bishop is happily menacing along that diagonal, why block it?
14. Nh4 Qd7 15. e6 would seem to just KILL black. :-) I mean, really, what's the defense? I suppose one answer might be 14. ... Qh5, but then 15. exd6+ Be6? 16. Rxe6+ fxe6 17. d7+ and if 1 ...[text shortened]... k... not sure. Black has reason to be scared, that's for sure.
But a nice game anyway!
Capa played 6.Qb3 right away:
Capablanca,J - Downey,A [C21]
London simul London, 15.11.1911
1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Bc4 cxb2 5.Bxb2 d6 6.Qb3 Nh6 7.Nf3 Nc6 8.0-0 Bd7 9.Qc2 Qe7 10.Nc3 0-0-0 11.Nd5 Qe8 12.Rfc1 f6 13.Nc3 Ng4 14.Nb5 Qh5 15.h3 Nge5 16.Bxe5 dxe5 17.Nxa7+ Kb8 18.Nxc6+ Bxc6 19.Rab1 Qe8 20.Bb5 Bd6 21.Bxc6 1-0
14.Nh4 looks strong indeed. And why you did not take bishop on the next move instead of d7? After 15.Bxe6, black position looks resighable. But black definitely could improve too - doing without castling here is not great idea.
All gambits in correspondence chess are very iffy. If your opponent has a good book or database, you are at a decided disadvantage. In blitz, yes. Play all the gambits you like. In correspondence, beware!That's arguable (if only gambit is not 100% unsound). For example Purdy (1st. cc world champion) and Estrin (7th cc world champion) often employed Evans and with great success. They did not have databases then, but knowledges always played part in high-level cc chess. And, IMO, at least on our level (~RHP mid-level), whoever has more experience with the opening and better feeling of the position will win.
Originally posted by buddy2Eh? I'm not going to even raise my beloved KG to the table. But the QG ... that's known to be rock solid everywhere, no?
All gambits in correspondence chess are very iffy. If your opponent has a good book or database, you are at a decided disadvantage. In blitz, yes. Play all the gambits you like. In correspondence, beware!
Originally posted by paultopiaYes, but all the lines in the QG, black normally gives the pawn back or doesn't take it at all. It shouldn't really be named the QG at all...lol....
Eh? I'm not going to even raise my beloved KG to the table. But the QG ... that's known to be rock solid everywhere, no?